Advertising

... and cognitive science , which study the hardware and
evolutionary psychology (that study the software or mind) assert
that this is true.

Partially true, as both the mainstream cognitive science and
psychology still does not address the mind-body issue, even less the
comp particular mind-body issue. In fact they use comp + weak
materialism, which can be shown contradictory(*).

The Kant idea that even space and time are creations of the mind is
crucial for the understanding and to compatibilize the world of
perceptions and phenomena with the timeless, reversible,
mathematical nature of the laws of physics that by the way,
according with M Theory, have also dualities between the entire
universe and the interior of a brane on the planck scale (we can
not know if we live in such a small brane).

OK. No doubt that Kant was going in the right (with respect to comp
at least) direction. But Kant, for me, is just doing 1/100 of what
the neoplatonists already did.

I don´t assume either if this mathematical nature is or not the
ultimate nature or reality

Any Turing universal part of it is enough for the ontology, in the
comp frame. For the epistemology, no mathematical theories can ever
be enough. Arithmetic viewed from inside is bigger than what *any*
theory can describe completely. This makes comp preventing any text
to capture the essence of what being conscious can mean, be it a
bible, string theory, or Peano Arithmetic. In a sense such theories
are like "new person", and it put only more mess in Platonia.

Probably the mind (or more specifically each instantiation of the
mind along the line of life in space-time) make use a sort of
duality in category theory between topological spaces and algebraic
structures (as Stephen told me and he can explain you) .

Many dualities exist, but as I have try to explain to Stephen, mind
and matter are not symmetrical things if we assume comp. The picture
is more that matter is an iceberg tip of "reality".

Even if matter the tip of the iceberg, does the rest of if "matter"?

Without the rest (water), there would be no iceberg and no tip!

do we can know about it this submerged computational nature?

In science we never know. But we can bet on comp, and then, we can
"know" relatively to that bet-theory. So with comp we know that the
rest is the external and internal math structures in arithmetic.

which phenomena produce the submerged part of this iceberg in the
one that we perceive?.

Multiverse hypothesis propose a collection of infinite icebergs, but
this is a way to avoid God and to continue with the speculative
business. What the computational nature of reality tries to explain
or to avoid? . May be you answered this questions a number of times,
( even to me and I did not realize it)

Careful. Comp makes the observable reality of physics, and the non
observable reality of the mind, NON computational. Indeed it needs a
God (arithmetical truth). It explains also why God is NOT arithmetical
truth as we usually defined it (it is only an approximation).

By the way, Bruno, you try to demolish physicalism from below by
proposing a computational theory of ultimate reality.

Not at all. many are confuse about this. This is the confusion between
comp and digital physics. Comp is just the bet that "I" am a machine.
Not that reality is computational. Comp makes reality ultra-non-
computational, like arithmetical truth is already ultra-non-
computational. The computational = Sigma_1 complete. Above it is not
computational, and arithmetical truth is the union of all sigma_i
(Sigma_0 U Sigma_1 Sigma_3 U Sigma_4 U Sigma_5 U Sigma_6 U Sigma_7
U ...).

Digital physics, although perhaps useful, is contradictory at the
start, as it implies comp, but if you get the UDA, you can understand
that comp entails non digital physics. By transitivity, this shows
that Digital physics entails non-digital physics, and so digital
physics is refuted (with or without comp).

I try to demolish it from above, by proposing that perceptions are
the effect of computation in living beings for survival .

OK. But you have to assume some sort of reality to define "survival"
and to define what is surviving.

I assume, and I make use of it, that the comp hypothesis can also be
applied at a level above phisical reality instead of below: a
substitution at the axon firing level could be used to substitute a
part of the brain by computer chips (by making the chips to inject
axonic signals) + perhaps some hormonal control. This substitution
level Matrix-style can produce the same first person indeterminacy
and still the computation is made within this reality, by real
computers made of ordinary matter.

It will work for you, as an external observer for the matrix. But it
will NOT work for the people inside the matrix, as they will not stay
in that matrix for long, as their reality is the "real" arithmetical
matrix. In fact physical computation just don't capture consciousness.
Physical reality is completely a product of consciousness, and
consciousness is a statistical product of *all* computations.
This is something hard to explain, without going through the whole UDA
reasoning.

This is enough for a discussion.

With "by real computers made of ordinary matter." I mean that the
computers are structures within the mathematical manifold that
describe the physical reality (or the tip of the iceberg).

But with comp, the physical reality cannot be taken for granted. You
*have to* extract it from the logic of the sigma_1 sentences
structured by the person points of view. (unless a flaw in UDA).

I don't try to demolish physicalism. I just show that it cannot work
once we assume comp. Without AUDA, I would say that I just translate
the mind-body problem into a problem of justifying the hallucination
of matter from arithmetic.
Then, AUDA gives the method and the non trivial first results. There
is already an arithmetical quantization, and it is just beyond my
competence to show if it simulates a quantum computer or not.

Many philosophers (especially academical and atheists) hates this as
it makes the mind-body problem into a technical problem, and then it
is against the current weakly-materialist dogma favored by the most
common current ideologies.

The global picture is the same as the one described by the mystics,
though, as we can say thanks to that greek period where mysticism was
the best ally to science. Indeed the greek created the science from
that insight, theology included.

Please keep in mind that: "I am a machine (comp) implies that
everything else (matter, consciousness) is NOT a machine".

"I am a machine" is an abbreviation for CT+ "yes doctor" (the "I" is
ambiguous).

Bruno

Eventually matter emerge from dreams coherence conditions. Dreams
are just the first person view on the relevant computations which
exists by elementary arithmetic.

For the perception of time or for the ordering of past events in
time since future events are unknown due to the increasing entropy,
the mind would make use of another mathematical structure with a
relation of order.

I agree, and N = {0, s(0), s(s(0)), ... } is quite enough, at least
with the addition and multiplication laws. You can define the order
by the order relation x < y, that you can define for example by Ez(x
+ z = y & ~(z = 0)). That order is enough to define the order of the
computational steps in any computations.

With computationalism, physics is *literally* entirely reducible to
computer science (= number theory or combinator theory), in a sense
similar to the fact that current biology is literally reducible to
chemistry, itself reducible to physics. Note that computer science
refers to number crunching and syntactical manipulations, but also
to the many semantics of programs and computations, like Scott
denotational semantics, or like those derived from mathematical
logic (self-reference theory, model theory, Curry-Howard
isomorphism, etc.).

Here, the use of self-reference makes it possible to explain the
*whole* of physics: that is the quanta *and* the qualia together,
and why they seems (and are) different. All universal numbers, when
looking inward, find that same universal qualia-quanta distinctions.
Note this makes comp testable, as you can compare the quanta
behavior found by machine introspection with what we can observe,
and in that sense, we can say that QM-without-collapse is quite an
ally, up to now, to the comp postulate. Newton physics, once
assessed, would have violate the comp theory.

" Kant's most original contribution to philosophy is his
"Copernican Revolution,"
that, as he puts it, it is the representation that makes the object
possible
rather than the object that makes the representation possible. This
introduced
the human mind as an active originator of experience rather than
just a passive
recipient of perception. Something like this now seems obvious:
the mind could
be a tabula rasa, a "blank tablet," no more than a bathtub full of
silicon chips
could be a digital computer. Perceptual input must be processed,
i.e. recognized,
or it would just be noise -- "less even than a dream" or "nothing
to us," as Kant

Subject: Re: A "grand hypothesis" about order, life, and
consciousness

On Friday, October 5, 2012 7:05:06 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
So it is reasonable to define life as that which can produce order
out of chaos" *. Since at least higher living beings
also possess consciousness, my "grand" hypothesis is that
life = consciousness = awareness = producing order out of chaos.

I agree Roger. I would add to this understanding however, a
logarithmic sense of increasing quality of experience.

I would not say producing order out of chaos because I think that
chaos is not primordial. Nonsense is a mismatch or attenuation of
sense, not the other way around. Order cannot be produced from
chaos unless chaos implicitly contains the potential for
order...which makes the production of orderly appearance really
just a formality.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
Alberto.
--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.